And Lamech said to his wives Ada and Sella: Hear my voice, wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech: for I have killed a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt: sevenfold vengeance shall be given for Cain, but for Lamech seventy times sevenfold. Verses 23 and 24 — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

And Lamech said to his wives Ada and Sella: Hear my voice, wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech: for I have killed a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt: sevenfold vengeance shall be given for Cain, but for Lamech seventy times sevenfold. Verses 23 and 24.¹

Dixitque Lamech uxoribus suis Ada & Sella, audite vocem meam uxores Lamech, auscultate sermonem meum: quoniam occidi virum in vulnus meum, & Adolescentulum in livorem meum: Septuplum ultio dabitur de Cain: de Lamech vero septuagies septies. VERS. 23. & 24.

TAM obscurus & perplexus est hic locus, ut in eo interpretando duodecimum & decimumtertium librum Commentariorum suorum in Genesim (teste Hieronymo in Epistola 125. quae ad Damasum scripta est) consumpserit Origenes. Quin putat Catharinus esse prorsus inexplicabilem hunc locum, nec mortalium quenquam humana ratione, & investigatione, verum & proprium eius intellectum assequi posse. Sane, obscuritatem eius, satis declarat ingens Doctorum in eo explanando interpretationum & sententiarum varietas, atque dissensio. Nimirum, hic usu venit quod in rebus maxime dubiis & incertis evenire solet: ut qui eas tractant, quod nihil habeant explorati & certi, quod sequantur, variis ducti coniecturis, in diversas admodum & contrarias opiniones distrahantur. Quo maiori nobis studio & diligentia ad huius loci explicationem incubendum est: ut quod videtur similius vero, & cum verborum Mosis sententia congruentius id lectori aperte ac breviter indicetur.

So obscure and perplexed is this place, that in interpreting it Origen consumed the twelfth and thirteenth book of his Commentaries on Genesis (as Jerome testifies in Epistle 125, which was written to Damasus). Indeed Catharinus thinks this place utterly inexplicable, and that no mortal can attain the true and proper understanding of it by human reason and investigation. Certainly, its obscurity is sufficiently declared by the huge variety and disagreement of the Doctors' interpretations and opinions in explaining it. Doubtless, here happens what is wont to happen in most doubtful and uncertain matters: that those who treat them, since they have nothing explored and certain to follow, led by various conjectures, are drawn into quite diverse and contrary opinions. Wherefore we must apply the greater study and diligence to the explanation of this place, that what seems nearer the truth, and more congruent with the sense of Moses's words, may be indicated to the reader openly and briefly.²

QUATUOR huius loci reperio interpretationes. Prima est pervulgata, multisque tam Hebraeorum quam Christianorum interpretum probata, quae mihi etiam praeter caeteras probatur. Fertur ex antiqua Hebraeorum traditione, Lamech fuisse deditum venationi, & usque ad extremam aetatem in ea studiose & assidue versatum. Cum igitur iam prae senio caligans, & utens ductu adolescentis (quem Hebraei filium ipsius Tubal-Cain fuisse dicunt) nihilominus tamen venationi vacaret: semel offendit ipsum Cain densis in sylvis ferarum more inerrantem: quem Lamech monitu sui rectoris & ducis feram esse illum aestimantis, sagitta confixum interfecit. Verum mox errore cognito, tanta in puerum exarsit ira, ut eum multo & vehementi percussu, ictuque occiderit. Sic igitur exponunt verba: Alloqui

I find four interpretations of this place. The first is widespread, and approved by many interpreters both Hebrew and Christian, which is also approved by me beyond the others. It is handed down from ancient Hebrew tradition that Lamech was given to hunting, and up to his extreme old age was studiously and assiduously engaged in it. Since therefore, now dim of sight from old age, and using the guidance of a youth (whom the Hebrews say was the son of Tubalcain himself), he nevertheless still had leisure for hunting: once he came upon Cain himself wandering in the dense woods in the manner of wild beasts; whom Lamech, at the warning of his director and guide, thinking him to be a wild beast, transfixed with an arrow and killed. But soon, the error being recognized, so great an anger blazed up against the boy, that he killed him with a heavy and vehement blow and stroke. So then they expound the words: [Lamech] addresses...³

tur Lamech uxores suas geminae caedi a se factae per quam poenitens scelusque suum illis confessus, Occidi, inquit, virum, id est, Cain, in vulnus meum, id est, vulnere meo, seu vulnere a me illi inflicto, Et adolescentulum in livore meo, quia vehementer eum percutiens arcu, totum corpus eius lividum fecerat. Quoniam autem haec caedes incidit in septimam generationem ab ipso Adam, apparet necem Cain & vindictam fratricidii eius usque in septimam generationem fuisse dilatam, quod nonnulli significatum putarunt illis Dei verbis, Omnis qui occiderit Cain septuplum punietur, ut nos supra declaravimus. Haec interpretatio duas ob causas probabilis admodum est: quod generatio Cain producta est usque ad diluvium, eam tamen Moses terminat in Lamech & filiis eius, non ob aliam profecto causam, nisi quia in generatione Lamech terminata est vita Cain occisi a Lamech: tum etiam, quia nulla ratio erat, cur vellet Moses narrare homicidium, quod fecerat Lamech, nisi ut miserrimum vitae Cain exitum, atque interitum indicaret.

...Lamech addresses his wives, greatly penitent for the double killing done by him, and confessing his crime to them: 'I have killed,' he says, 'a man' — that is, Cain — 'to my wounding,' that is, by my wound, or by a wound inflicted on him by me; 'and a young man to my hurt,' because, striking him vehemently with the bow, he had made his whole body livid. But since this killing fell in the seventh generation from Adam himself, it appears that the death of Cain and the vengeance for his fratricide was deferred until the seventh generation — which some thought was signified by those words of God, 'Everyone who kills Cain shall be punished sevenfold,' as we declared above. This interpretation is quite probable for two reasons: because, although the generation of Cain is continued up to the flood, Moses nevertheless terminates it in Lamech and his sons — for no other reason indeed than because in Lamech's generation the life of Cain, killed by Lamech, was terminated; and also because there was no reason why Moses should wish to narrate the homicide which Lamech had done, unless to indicate the most wretched end and death of Cain.⁴

NON sum nescius, nec Paulo Burgensi, nec Catharino, nec Hieronymo ab Oleastro placere, Cain esse occisum a Lamech: quia Deus, inquiunt, promiserat ei impunitatem a caede, & securum eum fecerat, quin etiam edixerat septuplum iri punitum illum, qui Cainum interfecisset. Sic autem punitum esse Lamech nusquam legitur. Putat autem Burgensis, Cain non alia morte quam per diluvium interiisse. Verum his rationibus non equidem deducar a communi sententia. Deus enim tantum significavit, Cain non statim, nec a quolibet, qui eum inveniret, ut ipse metuens dixit, occisum iri. Quin, ut supra diximus, multi dictum illud Domini sic interpretati sunt, ut significaverit Deus, Cain victurum usque ad septimam eius generationem, & in ea esse occidendum. An autem Lamech, quia per ignorationem & errorem occidit Cain, & quia crimen suum confessus est, poenas quas Deus interfectori Cain interminatus fuerat evaserit, nec ne, incertum est: nec enim omnia, quae tunc acta sunt, prodere litteris curae fuit Mosi. Illud certe, quod dixit Burgensis, Cain vixisse usque ad diluvium, nemini qui sacrarum litterarum non sit plane ignarus, probari poterit. Ex eo enim conficeretur, Cain vixisse plus mille & sexcentis annis: siquidem ex quinto capite libri Geneseos manifestum est, ab Adamo usque ad diluvium mille sexcentos quinquaginta sex annos praeteriisse.

I am not unaware that it pleases neither Paul of Burgos, nor Catharinus, nor Jerome of Oleaster, that Cain was killed by Lamech: because God, they say, had promised him impunity from killing, and had made him secure, and indeed had decreed that he who killed Cain would be punished sevenfold. But that Lamech was so punished is nowhere read. And Paul of Burgos thinks Cain died by no other death than through the flood. But by these reasons I shall not indeed be led away from the common opinion. For God only signified that Cain would not be killed at once, nor by just anyone who found him, as he himself fearfully said. Indeed, as we said above, many interpreted that saying of the Lord to mean that God signified that Cain would live until his seventh generation, and in it was to be killed. But whether Lamech — because he killed Cain through ignorance and error, and because he confessed his crime — escaped the penalties which God had threatened against Cain's killer, or not, is uncertain: for Moses did not take care to record in writing all the things that were then done. That certainly which Burgos said — that Cain lived until the flood — can be proved to no one who is not entirely ignorant of the sacred writings. For from it, it would be concluded that Cain lived more than sixteen hundred years: since from the fifth chapter of the book of Genesis it is manifest that from Adam to the flood one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years passed.⁵

This first interpretation, which pleases us most of all, Cajetan treats subtly and clearly; for, explaining this place, he writes thus: 'Lamech expressly confesses that he killed two men: both from the diversity of age — the one a man, the other a boy; and from the diverse manner of killing — the one namely by a wound, the other by a bruise. And "bruise" (livor) is the name of an effect, which comes from a blow without a wound: for there happens a gathering of blood under the skin, and the struck part is rendered livid. But who the man or the boy was that was killed, the letter does not openly signify; yet it introduces a conjecture, that the man killed by a wound...'⁶

HANC primam interpretationem, quae nobis omnium maxime placet, subtiliter & enucleate tractat Caietanus, hunc enim locum explanans ita scribit: Confitetur expresse Lamech se duos occidisse homines: tum ex diversitate aetatis, alterum virum, alterum puerum: tum ex diverso modo occidendi, altero scilicet vulnere, altero livore. Et est livor nomen effectus, qui fit ex percussione absque vulnere: fit enim concursus sanguinis sub cute, & redditur pars percussa livida. Quis autem fuerit vir puerve occisus, littera non aperte significat, coniecturam tamen ingerit, quod vir occisus vulnere

'...by a wound was Cain: both because the progeny of Cain alone is reviewed, and only up to Lamech as the killer of Cain (for Moses mentions his wife and three sons, that he might explain who, what sort, and how great this Lamech was, from his fame, and bigamy, and sons); and because this whole history of Cain terminates in the words of the homicide as its principal intent; and from the comparison of Cain's penalty to Lamech's own penalty; and because the letter fits — that Lamech, being blind, at the boy who directed him saying, "Shoot the arrow there," thinking a beast was moving there, wounded the hidden Cain; and after he noticed that he had killed the father of his ancestor, he flogged the boy, who died from the bruise of the flogging. For a great bruise, unpurged, is deadly. That the letter fits, the ages of the slain and the modes of killing attest. And reading "Cain avenged sevenfold," you have, by joining it to what precedes, that Cain's killer was to be avenged sevenfold. But that which is added, "and Lamech seventy-seven," signifies that he was to be punished with a far greater penalty, as being guilty of parricide and of filicide (if that boy was his son), or at least of homicide, and guilty of contempt for the divine justice by which he knew Cain was punished for homicide. But the greater penalty is signified, in the Hebrew manner, by the two first sevens — seven, and seventy. For the first septenary number is called "seven"; but the second, "seventy"; for from seven up to seventy there is no number denominated from seven. Alluding, therefore, to Cain's vengeance by the septenary number, namely sevenfold, he infers that his own would be by a double septenary, namely seven and seventy. But why he did not say adverbially "seventy times and seven times," but nominally "seventy and seven," I do not know — unless perhaps it be true, what Josephus says, that Lamech had seventy-seven sons and daughters, and therefore said he was to be punished in [his] seventy-seven children.' Thus Cajetan.⁷

vulnere fuerit Cain: tum ex eo quod ex sola progenies Cain recensetur, & non nisi usque ad Lamech tanquam occisorem Cain: (uxorem siquidem & trium filiorum eius meminit Moses, ut quis, qualis, ac quantus fuerit iste Lamech, explicaret ex fama, & bigamia, & filiorum) tum ex eo, quod universa haec historia Cain terminatur ad verba homicidii tanquam principaliter intenta: tum ex comparatione poenae Cain ad poenam ipsius Lamech: tum quia quadrat littera, quod Lamech caecutiens, dicente puero dirigente ipsum, Emitte sagittam illo, arbitratus bestiam ibi moveri, vulneraverit Cain absconditum: & postquam advertit se occidisse patrem atavi sui, flagellaverit puerum, qui ex livore flagelli mortuus fuerit. Livor enim magnus non purgatus, mortifer est. Quadrare enim hac littera, testantur aetates occisorum, & modi occidendi. Legendo autem septies vindicatum Cain, habes iungendo superioribus, & quod occisor Cain vindicandus esset septies. Quod autem infertur, & Lamech septuaginta septem, significat quod longe maiori poena puniendus esset, utpote reus parricidii, & filicidii, si puer ille filius eius erat, vel saltem homicidii, & reus contempta iustitia divina, qua punitum sciebat Cain ob homicidium. Significatur autem maior poena more Hebraeo per duos primos septenarios, & septem, & septuaginta. Primus siquidem numerus septenarius, appellatur septem: secundus vero, septuaginta; nam a septem usque ad septuaginta, nullus est numerus denominatus a septem. Alludendo itaque ad Cain vindictam numero septenario, videlicet septies, infert suam fore duplici septenario, videlicet septem & septuaginta. Cur vero non dixerit adverbialiter, septuagies & septies, sed nominaliter septuaginta & septem, nescio, nisi forte verum sit, quod Iosephus dicit, Lamech habuisse se filios & filias septuaginta septem, & propterea se puniendum esse dixerit in septuaginta & septem filiis. Sic Caietanus.

SED unde comperta est historia haec de Caino occiso a Lamech? Tostatus quaestione 15. super hoc caput, auctorem eius facit Iosephum. Sed profecto memoria lapsus est. Iosephus enim duo tantum brevissime scribit de eo lib. 1. Antiquitatum, cap. 2. alterum est, Lamech ex duabus uxoribus Sella & Ada septuaginta & septem filios suscepisse, alterum vero, cum esset is divini iuris non imperitus, videretque poenas se exoluturum parricidii a Caino perpetrati (fortasse quod eius vindictam in septimam generationem a Deo dilatam esse intellexisset) hoc eum uxoribus suis indicasse. Tantum Iosephus. Sed ego Tostatum existimo secutum Historiam scholasticam, in cap. 28. historiae Geneseos, nec bene considerantem, quod in ea traditur, vel per oblivionem vel per incogitantiam esse lapsum. Fuit igitur vetus haec traditio apud Hebraeos, & quod ea valde quadraret historiae Mosis, & quod ad hunc locum de homicidio Lamech intelligendum & explicandum magnam lucem afferret, propterea libenter a multis recepta, vehementerque probata est.

But whence is this history of Cain killed by Lamech ascertained? Tostatus, in question 15 on this chapter, makes Josephus its author. But he certainly slipped in memory. For Josephus writes only two things very briefly about him in book 1 of the Antiquities, ch. 2: one is that Lamech, from his two wives Sella and Ada, begot seventy-seven children; the other is that, since he was not unskilled in divine law, and saw that he would pay penalties for the parricide perpetrated on Cain (perhaps because he understood that its vengeance had been deferred by God to the seventh generation), he indicated this to his wives. Only that much [says] Josephus. But I think Tostatus followed the Historia Scholastica, in ch. 28 of the history of Genesis, and, not considering well what is handed down in it, slipped either through forgetfulness or through inadvertence. There was, therefore, this old tradition among the Hebrews; and because it fits the history of Moses very well, and because it brings great light to the understanding and explaining of this place concerning Lamech's homicide, it was therefore willingly received by many and vehemently approved.⁸

Which [tradition] Jerome seems to hint at in the epistle which he wrote to Damasus: 'This,' he says, 'is the opinion of our elders, that they think Cain was killed in the seventh generation by Lamech'; and a little below, 'Lamech, who was the seventh from Adam, killed Cain not willingly, as is written in a certain Hebrew volume,'⁹

Quam subindicare videtur Hieronymus in epistola 225. quam scripsit ad Damasum: Maiorum, inquit, nostrorum ista sententia est, quod putent in septima generatione a Lamech interfectum Cain, & paulo infra, Lamech qui septimus ab Adamo fuit, non sponte, ut in quodam Hebraeo volumine scribitur, interfecit Cain,

'...just as he himself afterward confesses, saying, I killed a man in my wound and a young man in my bruise,' etc. But let us pursue the remaining three interpretations.¹⁰

sicut ipse postea confitetur dicens, virum occidi in vulnere meo & iuvenem in livore meo, &c. Sed persequamur reliquas tres interpretationes.

The second is the interpretation of Theodoret (in the book of Questions on Genesis, question 44), who says that Lamech killed not two men, nor killed Cain himself, but some other man of adolescent age; yet that he escaped the punishment of the homicide, because he vehemently grieved for his crime, and judged himself worthy of a greater punishment than Cain himself, as his words declare. Theodoret, therefore, when he had posed this question, 'Whom did Lamech kill?', himself answers it thus: 'Not two, as some thought, nor Cain himself, as others have fabled, but one, and him a youth. For, he says, I killed to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt — that is, a man of youthful age; yet he escaped punishment on account of the confession of his sin, and, by bearing sentence against himself, avoided the divine sentence.'¹¹

ALTERA est interpretatio Theodoreti in libro Quaestionum in Genesim, quaest. 44. qui ait, non duos homines occidisse Lamech, nec occidisse ipsum Cain, sed alium quempiam hominem aetate adolescentem; ob id tamen homicidii poenam evasisse, quod crimen suum vehementer doluit, & maiori supplicio, quam ipsius Cain dignum se indicavit, ut eius verba declarant. Theodoretus igitur cum posuisset hanc quaestionem, Quosnam interfecerit Lamech? ad eam ipse sic respondet: Non duos ut quidam putaverunt, nec ipsum Cain, ut alii fabulati sunt, sed unum & hunc iuvenem. Verum inquit, occidi in vulnus meum, & adolescentulum in livorem meum, hoc est, virum agentem iuvenilem aetatem; poenam tamen evasit propter peccati confessionem, & contra se ferens sententiam, evitavit sententiam divinam.

The third interpretation is Suidas's (in the entry 'Lamech'), who thinks these words signify that two men were killed by Lamech, one of manly age, the other of youthful age; and that these were brothers of holy Henoch, who was translated into Paradise; and that, because they were men distinguished by the praise of piety and sanctity, therefore Lamech grieved so greatly for their death. Suidas writes thus: 'Two Lamechs are mentioned, one the Cainite, the other who was the father of Noah himself. That one killed a man and an adolescent, and married two wives, who accuses himself, who pronounces himself worthy of the penalty seventy times seven. "Cain," he says, "paid sevenfold penalties, but Lamech seventy times seven." He is therefore punished more gravely, because by the misfortune of him who had first transgressed he was not made more cautious. He also took away the brothers of the just Henoch, who therefore prayed by faith that he might not see such a death; and, being granted his wish, was translated.' Thus Suidas.¹²

TERTIA interpretatio est Suidae in verbo Lamech, qui censet his verbis significari duos homines esse occisos a Lamech, unum virili aetate, alterum iuvenili: & hos fuisse fratres sancti Henoch qui translatus est in Paradisum: & quia viri erant pietatis, atque sanctitatis laude insignes, propterea Lamech eorum necem tantopere doluit. Sic autem scribit Suidas: Lamechi duo memorantur, unus Cainius, alter qui fuit pater ipsius Noe. Ille virum occidit & adolescentem, duasque uxores duxit, qui se ipse incusat, qui se poena septuagies septies dignum pronunciat. Cainus, inquit, septuplas dedit poenas, Lamech vero septuagies septies. Gravius igitur punitur, quod casu eius qui prius deliquerat, non est factus cautior. Iusti etiam Henoch fratres sustulit, qui fide propterea oravit, ne videret talem mortem: & voti compos translatus est. Haec Suidas.

QUARTA interpretatio est quorundam Hebraeorum, qui verba Lamechi legenda existimant per interrogationem, ita ut reddant sensum negativum. Et hanc tradunt historiam, Lamechum in senectute male tractatum esse ab uxoribus, vel propter nimiam eius libidinem atque lasciviam, vel propter truculenta filiorum eius ingenia; quippe qui invento usu armorum passim caedes hominum faciebant. Quamobrem identidem Lamecho talium filiorum parenti mortem uxores comminabantur, quasi Deus de ipso & filiis eius gravissimas poenas sumpturus esset. Lamechus igitur ex comparatione sui cum Caino, ostendit uxoribus sibi non esse timendam mortem. Num ego, inquit, occidi virum, & hunc adolescentulum, sicut Cain qui fratrem suum Abel iuvenili aetate florentem, in vulnere & livore, id est, partim ferro, partim fustibus interfecit? Si igitur prohibuit Deus, ne quis Cainum, etiam si fratricida erat, occidere auderet: quanto gravius puniet Deus, si quis mihi mortem afferre ausus sit? Atque hae sunt quatuor interpretationes illorum verborum Lamech, quarum primam caeteris probabiliorem esse arbitramur.

The fourth interpretation is that of certain Hebrews, who think Lamech's words are to be read as a question, so that they yield a negative sense. And they hand down this history: that Lamech in his old age was badly treated by his wives, either on account of his excessive lust and lasciviousness, or on account of the truculent dispositions of his sons — who, having invented the use of arms, made slaughters of men everywhere. Wherefore his wives repeatedly threatened Lamech, the parent of such sons, with death, as if God would take the gravest penalties from him and his sons. Lamech, therefore, by comparing himself with Cain, shows his wives that he need not fear death: 'Have I,' he says, 'killed a man, and this a young man, as Cain did — who killed his brother Abel, flourishing in youthful age, by wound and bruise, that is, partly by iron, partly by clubs? If, therefore, God forbade that anyone should dare to kill Cain, even though he was a fratricide: with how much graver a punishment will God punish, if anyone should dare to bring death upon me?' And these are the four interpretations of those words of Lamech, of which we judge the first to be more probable than the rest.¹³

SEquitur, ut enucleemus sententiam illorum verborum, Septuplum ultio dabitur de Cain, de Lamech vero septuagies septies. Mitto hic recensere interpretationes, quas memorat S. Hieronymus in Epist. 125. ad Damasum, ut allegoricas magis quam sententiae verborum Mosis inhaerentes. Quadruplex igitur fertur huius loci interpretatio. Prima est, Lamech dixisse haec verba vehementer sceleris a se commissi paenitentem, atque dolentem, & id supra peccatum Cain exaggerantem, maiorique dignum supplicio iudicantem. Ut sit haec istorum verborum sententia: Peccatum meum, inquit Lamech, maiori supplicio dignum est, quam peccatum Cain: itaque si Cain septies puniri dignus fuit, ego septuagies septies. Phrasi enim Scripturae satis frequenti, quemadmodum septies significat multum, ita septuagies septies, significat multo plus. Cui rei fidem facit illud, quod Dominus dixit Petro, Matth. 18. Non dico tibi usque septies, sed usque septuagies septies.

It follows that we should unfold the sense of those words, 'Sevenfold vengeance shall be given for Cain, but for Lamech seventy times seven.' I pass over reviewing here the interpretations which St Jerome mentions in Epistle 125 to Damasus, as being allegorical rather than adhering to the sense of Moses's words. A fourfold interpretation, then, of this place is reported. The first is that Lamech said these words, vehemently penitent for the crime committed by him, and grieving, and exaggerating it above Cain's sin, and judging it worthy of a greater punishment. So that this is the sense of those words: 'My sin,' says Lamech, 'is worthy of a greater punishment than the sin of Cain; therefore if Cain was worthy to be punished sevenfold, I [am worthy] seventy times sevenfold.' For by a phrase quite frequent in Scripture, just as 'sevenfold' signifies 'much,' so 'seventy times seven' signifies 'much more.' To this that gives credence which the Lord said to Peter (Matthew 18), 'I do not say to you until seven times, but until seventy times seven.'¹⁴

SECUNDUM hanc interpretationem, licet hoc loco distinguere tres hominum gradus: ut primus sit hominum innocentium, qualis fuit Abel; quorum tres sunt proprietates: Placere Deo & ipsos, & ipsorum opera: Invidiosos esse apud homines, & malis invisos: Magnas & frequentes pati persecutiones, nec raro tristes habere exitus. Hos bene denotat vocabulum Abel significans luctum; nam quod discipulis suis dixit Dominus, Plorabitis & flebitis vos, mundus autem gaudebit, in universum de piis & iustis viris dici potest. Secundus gradus est peccatorum impaenitentium, qualis fuit Cain: quorum fere proprium est, quaelibet scelera patrare, eaque vel excusare vel negare, & ad extremum veniam & salutem desperare. Istorum vita miserrima est, sunt enim vagi semper & profugi: vagantur enim per omnia scelera, Deumque fugiunt & quaecumque illis ad salutem animi conducere possunt. Quibus bene quadrat nomen Cain significans possessionem; in hac enim vita tantum, & in hoc mundo bona possidere gestiunt, hic laeti, divites, potentes, ac beati esse & haberi cupiunt; quid eos post mortem maneat, nihil pensi habent. Tertius gradus est peccatorum poenitentium, quos expressit Lamech: isti, si quid vel per errorem, vel animi perturbatione, aliorumque suasu, & impulsu mali egerint, id continuo agnoscunt, dolent, detestantur, confitentur quovis se dignos supplicio pronunciant.

According to this interpretation, one may here distinguish three grades of men. The first is of innocent men, such as Abel was; of whom there are three properties: that they and their works please God; that they are envied among men, and hated by the wicked; that they suffer great and frequent persecutions, and not rarely have sad ends. These the word 'Abel,' signifying 'mourning,' well denotes; for what the Lord said to his disciples (John 16), 'You will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice,' can be said universally of pious and just men. The second grade is of impenitent sinners, such as Cain was; of whom it is mostly proper to perpetrate any crimes, and either to excuse or deny them, and at last to despair of pardon and salvation. The life of these is most wretched, for they are always wanderers and fugitives: for they wander through all crimes, and flee God and whatever things can conduce to the salvation of their soul. To whom the name 'Cain,' signifying 'possession,' well fits; for they long to possess goods only in this life and in this world, wishing here to be joyful, rich, powerful, and blessed and so regarded; what awaits them after death, they take no thought. The third grade is of penitent sinners, whom Lamech expressed: these, if they have done anything either through error, or perturbation of mind, or by the persuasion and impulse of others' evil, immediately acknowledge it, grieve, detest it, confess it, and pronounce themselves worthy of any punishment.¹⁵

That this Lamech was such, Chrysostom confirms with many and eloquent words (homily 20 on Genesis). For, carefully explaining these words of Lamech, he writes in this manner: 'Consider, I pray, how much from the very beginning the punishment inflicted on Cain profited him [Lamech]; for he not only does not wait to be accused by another, because he had fallen into the same and a graver sin; but, with no one accusing or rebuking, he himself makes it manifest, and confesses what was done, and narrates to his wives the magnitude of the offense — as if fulfilling that which was said by the Prophet, "The just man is the accuser of himself in the beginning of his speech": for confession avails very much for the amending of sins. And so, just as it is graver than the sins themselves, after sins committed, to deny the sins: which'¹⁶

TALEM fuisse hunc Lamech, multis & disertis verbis confirmat Chrysostomus, homilia 20. in Genesim. Nam haec verba Lamech diligenter explanans, ad hunc modum scribit: Considera obsecro, statim ab initio quantum illi profuerit poena Cain irrogata; non solum enim non expectat ut ab alio arguatur, quod in idem & gravius peccatum lapsus sit; sed nullo vel accusante, vel increpante ipse semetipsum manifestum facit, & confitetur, quae facta sunt, mulieribusque narrat delicti magnitudinem, quasi illud quod a Propheta dictum est implens, Iustus sui ipsius accusator est in principio sermonis: Plurimum enim ad emendanda peccata valet confessio. Itaque sicut gravius est peccatis ipsis, post peccata commissa, peccata inficias ire: id quod

'...which that fratricide [Cain] did; and, being asked by the merciful God, not only did he not confess the crime which he had dared to perpetrate, but he even dared to lie to God, and did this that his life might be prolonged. But this one [Lamech] too had fallen into those same sins; yet, weighing in his mind that denial would prepare a graver punishment for him, having called his wives, with no one rebuking or accusing, he himself with his own tongue makes confession of his sins, and, comparing what had been done by him with those [done] by Cain, he defines the punishment for himself. You have seen the providence of the Lord: how his [Cain's] punishment is an occasion of mercy, and that his mercy reaches not only him who is punished — but how would they [wish to] take some fruit from it? For whence else, tell me, pray, would Lamech have been led to this confession, unless he had memory of those things which befell him [Cain], which continually struck his mind?'¹⁷

id quod fratricida ille agebat, & rogatus a misericorde Deo, non solum non confessus est, quod ausus fuerat patrare facinus, sed & Deo mentiri ausus est, & propterea ut prolongaretur vita sua fecit. Caeterum & hic in illa sua peccata inciderat: sed animo expendens, quod negatio graviorem ipsi parasset poenam, vocatis mulieribus suis nullo reprehendente, vel arguente, ipse sua lingua confessionem peccatorum facit, & conferens quae a se facta erat cum his quae a Cain, poenam sibi ipsi definit. Vidisti providentiam Domini; quomodo poena illius, occasio sunt misericordia, & quod misericordia sua non solum ad illum pertingit, qui poena plectitur; sed quo modo velint inde aliquem fructum capere? Unde enim aliunde, dic quaeso, Lamech ad hanc confessionem adductus esset, nisi eorum quae illi contigerunt memoriam haberet, quae illius continuo mentem decutiebant.

And a little below, the same [Chrysostom], declaring it more clearly, subjoins: 'A great thing was said, and very great. Manifold and pious is the prudence of the man; for he not only confessed the deed which he had done, but also inflicted the punishment upon himself, comparing his sin to Cain's sin. "For what pardon," he says, "would he be worthy of, who is not amended by another's punishment, and is perpetually mindful of that matter, and is admonished, and moreover perpetrated a double homicide: because," he says, "I killed a man to my wounding, and a young man to my scar. Not so much," he says, "did I harm those whom I killed, as myself: for I cast myself into a punishment which I cannot escape, having wrought sins so great that they do not merit pardon. For if he, for one killing, was made liable to seven punishments, I would be worthy to pay the penalty seventy times seven. For what reason, and why? For although he wrought the killing of a brother, yet with no one ever before seen who had done this, nor any other seen who had suffered the punishment of such a crime, and tempted by so great anger — both of which increase my penalties. Because, having before my eyes what was perpetrated by him, and seeing the punishment to be incurable, I was not made more cautious. Therefore, although I should be punished seventy times seven more than he, yet not even so would I pay a worthy penalty."' Thus Chrysostom.¹⁸

ET paulo infra idem enucleatius declarans, subiungit Chrysostomus: Magnum quid dictum est, & valde magnum. Multiplex, piaque viri prudentia non solum enim factum confitebatur, quae operatus erat, sed & poenam sibi inferebat, comparans peccatum suum peccato Cain. Qua enim venia, inquit fuerit dignus, qui alterius poena emendatior non sit, & perpetuo memor eius rei est, & admonetur, & insuper duplex homicidium patravit: Quia virum, inquit, occidi in vulnus mihi, & adolescentem in cicatricem mihi. Non tantum, inquit, nocui illis, quos occidi, quantum mihi ipsi: In poenam enim quam effugere non possum me ipsum conieci, peccata operatus tanta, quae veniam non merentur. Nam si ille pro una caede septem poenis obnoxius factus est, ego dignus fuerim septuagies septies poenam luere. Cuius gratia, & quare? Nam licet caedem ille operatus fuerit fratris: attamen nullo unquam antea conspecto, qui hoc fecerat, neque alio viso, qui poenam dederat eiusmodi facinoris, & a tanta ira tentato, quae utraque mihi poenas augent. Quia & ante oculos habens, quod ab illo perpetratum, & poenam videns immedicabilem esse, cautior factus non sum. Propterea licet septuagies septies magis quam ille punirer, attamen neque sic dignam luerem poenam. Haec Chrysostomus.

ALTERA interpretatio est, per illud Septuagies septies, significari septuaginta septem liberos, seu posteros, quos ex duabus uxoribus procreaverat Lamech, ut scribit Iosephus, propter homicidium patris eorum Lamech, periisse omnes diluvio. Ut sit hic sensus: Cain propter peccatum suum in septima generatione punitus est, sed ego longe graviori supplicio punior, miserrimo interitu amissis septuaginta septem filiis. Verum haec interpretatio non est admodum probabilis: nam nec bene adaptatur ipsis verbis Scripturae, nec interitus ille septuaginta septem filiorum Lamech in diluvio, propria fuit peccati Lamech poena, sed generalis omnium hominum; quin etiam non minus pertinens ad Cain, quam ad Lamech: illa enim soboles & posteritas erat ipsius Cain.

The second interpretation is that by that 'seventy times seven' is signified the seventy-seven children, or descendants, whom Lamech had procreated from his two wives, [and] that (as Josephus writes), on account of the homicide of their father Lamech, they all perished in the flood. So that this is the sense: 'Cain for his sin was punished in the seventh generation, but I am punished with a far graver punishment, having lost seventy-seven sons by a most wretched destruction.' But this interpretation is not very probable: for it neither adapts well to the words of Scripture itself, nor was that destruction of Lamech's seventy-seven sons in the flood the proper punishment of Lamech's sin, but the general [punishment] of all men; indeed, it pertains no less to Cain than to Lamech, for that offspring and posterity was Cain's own.¹⁹

TERTIA interpretatio superioribus contraria est. Non enim duas illas poenas quae per septuplum, & per septuagies septem denotantur, ad Cain & ad Lamech refert, sed ad illorum interfectores. Non enim significatur

The third interpretation is contrary to the preceding. For it refers those two punishments, which are denoted by 'sevenfold' and by 'seventy times seven,' not to Cain and to Lamech, but to their killers. For it is not signified...²⁰

ficatur illis verbis, Cain punitum iri septuplum, Lamech vero septuagies, septies: sed eum qui occideret Cain, septemplici poena vindicatum iri: qui vero occideret Lamech, septuagies septies, id est, multo graviori poena. Quasi diceret Lamech, licet ego homicidium admiserim, non propterea tamen vos uxores meae metuere debetis, ne ab aliquo ipse interficiar. Si enim Deus Cainum, qui fratrem innocentem occiderat, vetuit a quoquam occidi, septemplicem poenam occisori eius comminatus, quanto graviori poena, si quis me occiderit, mulctabit eum Deus, quippe qui sceleratissimum & nocentissimum hominem per ignorationem & errorem interfecerim?

...signified by those words that Cain would be punished sevenfold, [and] Lamech seventy times seven; but that he who kills Cain would be avenged with a sevenfold punishment, and he who kills Lamech, seventy times seven — that is, with a far graver punishment. As if Lamech said: Although I have committed homicide, you, my wives, ought not therefore to fear lest I myself be killed by anyone. For if God forbade Cain, who had killed an innocent brother, to be killed by anyone, threatening a sevenfold punishment against his killer, with how much graver a punishment, if anyone kills me, will God punish him — since I killed a most wicked and harmful man through ignorance and error?²¹

QUARTA interpretatio Ruperti est in lib. 3. Commentariorum in Genesim, cap. octavo, qui putat per septemplicem poenam Cain significari poenam insolubilem & aeternam, quam ille persolvit, quoniam poenitentiam non egit: at vero per septuagies septies indicari poenam solubilem & temporariam, quam expendens Lamech in hac vita, crimen suum expiavit, siquidem is, cum delictum suum agnoverit, confessus fuerit, vehementerque doluerit, dignam egisse eum poenitentiam credendum est. Quamobrem sceleris eius poenam & vindictam non aeternam, sed temporalem esse oportuit. Ponam hic verba Ruperti: continent enim aliquot Scripturae locorum explanationem plane novam, & a communi Doctorum interpretatione diversam, nec tamen, propter eius viri tam pietatis, quam doctrinae existimationem & auctoritatem, lectori contemnendam.

The fourth interpretation is Rupert's (in book 3 of the Commentaries on Genesis, ch. 8), who thinks that by the sevenfold punishment of Cain is signified an insoluble and eternal punishment, which he [Cain] paid, because he did not do penance; but that by 'seventy times seven' is indicated a soluble and temporary punishment, which Lamech, paying in this life, expiated his crime — since he, when he acknowledged his offense, confessed it, and vehemently grieved, must be believed to have done worthy penance. Wherefore the punishment and vengeance of his crime had to be not eternal but temporal. I will set down here Rupert's words: for they contain an explanation of some places of Scripture that is plainly new, and diverse from the common interpretation of the Doctors, yet not to be despised by the reader, on account of that man's reputation and authority both of piety and of doctrine.²²

So then Rupert writes in this place: 'It is agreed that he who killed Cain, namely Lamech, did penance. For he said to his wives, "Hear my speech, wives of Lamech, for I killed a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt." Accordingly, and far otherwise, he immediately pronounced concerning his own punishment, saying, "Sevenfold vengeance shall be given for Cain, but for Lamech seventy times seven." It seems indeed, according to the quantity of the number, that "seventy times seven vengeance shall be given" is more than "sevenfold shall be punished," but truly it is less. For not the quantity of each number, but the nature, is here to be attended to. And indeed, both the seven and the seventy is an odd number, but the nature of all odd numbers is not the same. For of odd numbers, some are simple or uncompounded, others compounded, others intermediate. About the compounded and uncompounded only is what now pertains to the matter. An uncompounded odd number is called that of which no part is found except unity; but a compounded number is called that which another number besides unity measures — as are the nine, the fifteen, and with unity the twenty-one. For three threes, nine; five threes, or three fives, fifteen; seven threes, or three sevens, twenty-one. In this, therefore, the seven and the seventy-seven differ: that the seven is uncompounded, and through this is held insoluble; but the seventy-seven is compounded, and through this is held more soluble. For no number besides unity measures seven; but of seventy-seven, both seven and eleven are measurers. For eleven sevens, or seven elevens, make seventy-seven. When, therefore, God says, "But everyone who kills Cain shall be punished sevenfold," an insoluble punishment ought'²³

Sic igitur eo loci scribit Rupertus: Constat quod is, qui occidit Cain, scilicet Lamech, poenitudinem gesserit. Dixit enim uxoribus suis, Audite sermonem meum uxores Lamech, quoniam occidi virum in vulnus meum, & adolescentulum in livorem meum. Proinde & multo aliter de poena sua continuo pronunciavit dicens, septies ultio dabitur de Cain, de Lamech vero septuagies septies. Videtur quidem secundum quantitatem numeri plus esse, septuagies septies ultio dabitur, quam, septuplum punietur, sed profecto minus est. Non enim quantitas utriusque numeri sed natura hic attendenda est. Et quidem tam septenarius, quam septuagenarius numerus impar est, sed non omnium imparium numerorum eadem natura est. Imparium namque alii simplices vel incompositi, alii compositi, alii sunt medii. De compositis & incompositis tantum nunc ad rem pertinet. Incompositus impar numerus dicitur is, cuius nulla pars praeter unitatem invenitur. Compositus vero numerus dicitur is, quem alius praeter unitatem numerus metitur, ut sunt novenarius, quindenarius, & cum unitate vicenarius. Nam ter terni, novem: quinquies terni sive ter quinque, quindecim: septies tres sive ter septem, viginti unus. Hoc ergo septenarius, & septuagesimus septimus differunt, quod septenarius incompositus, ac per hoc insolubilis, septuagesimus septimus vero compositus, ac per hoc magis solubilis habetur. Nam septenarium praeter unitatem nullus metitur numerus: septuagesimi septimi vero & septenarius & undenarius mensores sunt. Nam undecies septem, vel septies undecim, septuaginta septem perficiunt. Cum igitur dicit Deus, sed omnis qui occiderit Cain, septuplum punietur, insolubilis poena debet

...an insoluble punishment ought to be understood and supplied — unless preceding penitence has made [it] a soluble, that is, a remissible sin. But when Lamech said, 'Sevenfold vengeance shall be given for Cain, but for Lamech seventy times seven,' an insoluble vengeance for Cain, and a soluble vengeance for Lamech, ought to be understood. And rightly indeed, because Cain did not do penance, but Lamech did penance, since he confesses his sin. And note that Scripture manifestly contradicts those who think Cain's sin was blotted out by his final death, when it says of him, already dead, 'Sevenfold vengeance shall be given for Cain.' To this place pertains that: when Peter said to the Lord, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times?' He who speaks all things according to the Scriptures answered, 'I do not say to you until seven times, but until seventy times seven.' For to sin 'until seven times' is to sin incessantly and insolubly — that is, without penitence, like Cain; but to sin 'seventy times seven' is indeed to commit a sin, and to loose it by penitence, which Lamech did. But that which the same Lord says in Luke, 'And if your brother sins against you seven times a day, and seven times a day is converted to you, saying, I repent, forgive him,' is to be taken of our own injuries: which 'seven times' — that is, however often they are committed — we ought to forgive, lest we hear that from the Lord, 'Wicked servant, I forgave you all the debt, because you asked me: ought you not, then, also to have had mercy on your fellow-servant?' For of those things which are committed against God, that must be understood which was foretold from Matthew's Gospel, and that which the same Luke had said before these things: 'If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he does penance, forgive him.' Thus Rupert.²⁴

debet intelligi & subaudiri oportet, nisi praecedens paenitentia solubile, id est, remissibile peccatum fecerit. Cum autem dixit Lamech, Septies ultio dabitur de Cain, de Lamech vero septuagies septies, insolubilis vindicta Cain, & solubilis vindicta Lamech debet intelligi. Et recte videlicet, quia Cain paenitentiam non egit, ipse vero Lamech paenitentiam egit, quia peccatum suum confitetur. Et nota quod manifeste Scriptura contradicit eis qui putant peccatum Cain suprema morte deletum, cum de illo iam mortuo dicit, Septies ultio dabitur de Cain. Ad hunc locum spectat illud, quod cum Petrus diceret Domino, Domine quoties peccabit in me frater meus & dimittam ei? usque septies? Ille qui omnia secundum Scripturas loquitur respondit, Non dico tibi usque septies, sed usque septuagies septies. Usque septies namque peccare, est incessanter & insolubiliter, id est, absque paenitentia peccare sicut Cain: septuagies septies vero peccare, est peccatum quidem admittere, & per paenitentiam illud solvere, quod fecit Lamech. Caeterum quod apud Lucam dicit idem Dominus, Et si septies in die peccaverit frater tuus in te, & septies in die conversus fuerit ad te, dicens, Poenitet me, dimitte illi, de propriis iniuriis accipiendum est: quas septies, id est, quoties admittuntur, dimittere debemus, ne audiamus illud a Domino, Serve nequam omne debitum dimisi tibi, quoniam rogasti me: Nonne ergo oportuit, & te misereri conservi tui? Nam de his quae in Deum admittuntur, illud intelligi oportet, quod de Matthaei Evangelio praedictum est, & illud quod idem Lucas ante haec dixerat, Si peccaverit frater tuus increpa illum: Et si paenitentiam egerit, dimitte illi. Haec Rupertus.

Translator’s notes

New lemma: Genesis 4:23-24 (marginal 'VERS. 23. & 24.'), Lamech's song to his wives. ↩
Lamech's song is the most obscure passage — Origen spent two books (12-13 of his Genesis Commentary) on it (per Jerome, Ep. 125 to Damasus); Catharinus thinks it inexplicable by human reason. Its obscurity shows in the Doctors' vast disagreement; Pererius will apply extra diligence to give the likeliest, most Mosaic sense briefly. Marginal gloss: 'Locus in Scriptura difficillimus.' ↩
FOUR interpretations; the FIRST (Pererius's preferred, from ancient Hebrew tradition): blind old Lamech, still hunting with a boy-guide (said to be Tubalcain's son), came upon Cain wandering in the woods like a beast; guided by the boy, he shot and killed Cain (mistaking him for a beast); then, realizing the error, in rage he killed the boy too — explaining 'a man' (Cain) and 'a young man' (the boy). Marginal glosses: 'Quatuor interpretationes huius loci'; 'Prima interpretatio quae praeter caeteras auctori probatur.' Catchword 'Alloqui-' (Alloquitur; continues on the next page). ↩
First interpretation continued: penitent Lamech confesses to his wives the double killing — Cain ('a man,' by a wound) and the boy ('a young man,' by a bruise, his body made livid by the bow-blow). This fell in the SEVENTH generation from Adam, so Cain's death fulfilled 'Everyone who kills Cain shall be punished sevenfold.' Two supports: (1) Cain's line, though continuing to the flood, is terminated by Moses at Lamech (because Cain's life ended there); (2) Moses would narrate Lamech's homicide only to mark Cain's wretched end. Verso running head 'COMMENTARIORVM' number '754'; true printed page 764. ↩
Objectors (Paul of Burgos, Catharinus, Oleaster) deny Cain was killed by Lamech: God promised Cain impunity and 'sevenfold' vengeance on his killer, yet Lamech's punishment is nowhere recorded; Burgos says Cain died in the flood. Pererius answers: God only said Cain would not be killed at once or by just anyone (many take it as living to the seventh generation, then killed); whether Lamech (who killed by error and confessed) escaped the threatened penalty is simply unknown, since Moses did not record everything. And Burgos's claim (Cain alive till the flood) is refuted by Scripture: it would make Cain over 1,600 years old (Adam-to-flood = 1,656 years, Gen 5). Marginal gloss: 'Cur Paulus Burgensis, Catharinus & Oleaster negent Cain esse occisum a Lamech.' ↩
Cajetan confirms the first interpretation: Lamech confesses killing two — distinguished by age (a man, a boy) and by manner (one by a wound, one by a 'bruise' = livor, blood gathering under unbroken skin). Who the two were the text does not state openly, but suggests a conjecture — that the man killed by a wound [was Cain]... Marginal gloss: 'Probatur haec prima interpretatio primum ex Caietano suam interpretationem confirmante.' Catchword 'vulnere' (continues on the next page). ↩
Cajetan's grounds that the 'man' was Cain: (1) only Cain's line is reviewed, ending at Lamech his killer (Moses names Lamech's wife and sons to characterize him); (2) the whole Cain-history ends at this homicide; (3) the comparison of Cain's and Lamech's penalties; (4) the 'letter fits' the blind-Lamech story (guided by the boy's 'shoot there,' he shot the hidden Cain thinking him a beast, then flogged the boy to death — a great unpurged bruise is deadly). On the numbers: 'sevenfold' (for Cain's avenger) vs. 'seventy-seven' (a far graver penalty for Lamech, guilty of parricide/filicide/homicide and of contempt for divine justice); the Hebrew idiom uses the two first sevens (seven and seventy). Why 'seventy and seven' (nominal) not 'seventy times seven' (adverbial) is unclear — unless (per Josephus) Lamech had 77 children, and meant he would be punished in them. 'Thus Cajetan.' Marginal gloss: 'Iosephus lib. 1. Antiquitatum.' Odd-side running head 'IN GENESIM, LIB. VII.' number '755'; true printed page 765. ↩
The source of the Lamech-killed-Cain story: Tostatus (q.15) credits Josephus, but misremembered — Josephus (Antiq. 1.2) says only two things briefly (Lamech had 77 children by Ada and Sella; and, knowing he must pay for the parricide of Cain — perhaps grasping the vengeance deferred to the seventh generation — he told his wives). Pererius thinks Tostatus really followed Comestor's Historia Scholastica (Genesis ch. 28) and slipped through carelessness. It is an old Hebrew tradition, widely received because it fits Moses's narrative and greatly illuminates Lamech's homicide. Marginal glosses: 'Unde compertum sit Cain esse occisum a Lamech'; 'Lapsus Tostati'; 'Traditio vetus Hebraeorum a Lamech Cainum interfectum.' ↩
Jerome (in his epistle to Damasus) hints at the tradition: 'our elders' opinion is that Cain was killed in the seventh generation by Lamech; and 'Lamech, the seventh from Adam, killed Cain not on purpose, as a certain Hebrew volume writes...' (The epistle is cited here as '225'; earlier on this passage it is cited as '125' — a print inconsistency.) Page footer signature 'DDDD 3'; catchword 'sicut' (continues on the next page). ↩
End of Jerome's quote (from the previous page) on Lamech killing Cain unwittingly; Pererius turns to the remaining three of the four interpretations of Lamech's song. Verso running head 'COMMENTARIORVM' number '756'; true printed page 766. ↩
SECOND interpretation — Theodoret (Quaest. in Gen. 44): Lamech killed only ONE man (a youth), not two, and not Cain; but he escaped punishment through confession and self-condemnation, thus avoiding God's sentence. Marginal gloss: 'Secunda interpretatio: quae est Theodoreti.' ↩
THIRD interpretation — Suidas (the Suda, s.v. 'Lamech'): Lamech killed TWO men (one grown, one youth), who were brothers of the Sethite Enoch/Henoch (the one 'translated,' Gen 5:24); their piety made Lamech's grief great. The Suda distinguishes the two Lamechs (the Cainite and Noah's father); Cain paid sevenfold, Lamech seventy-sevenfold (graver, since Cain's fate did not make him cautious); and Enoch, whose brothers Lamech killed, prayed not to see such a death and was translated. Marginal glosses: 'Tertia interpretatio: quae est Suidae'; 'Duo Lamechi in Scriptura memorantur.' ↩
FOURTH interpretation (certain Hebrews): read Lamech's words as a rhetorical question with a negative sense. Lamech, badly treated by his wives (who feared God's vengeance because of his lust or his sons' violence), reassures them by comparison with Cain: 'Have I killed anyone, as Cain killed innocent Abel? If God forbade even the fratricide Cain to be killed, how much more will he avenge me!' Pererius reaffirms the FIRST interpretation as the most probable. Marginal gloss: 'Quarta interpretatio quae est Hebraeorum.' ↩
Now the second clause of Lamech's song ('sevenfold for Cain, seventy-sevenfold for Lamech'). Pererius skips Jerome's allegorical readings (Ep. 125 to Damasus) and gives four interpretations. FIRST: Lamech, penitent, exaggerates his sin above Cain's — 'if Cain deserved sevenfold, I deserve seventy-sevenfold'; here 'seven' = 'much' and 'seventy-seven' = 'much more' (cf. Matt 18:22, 'not seven times but seventy times seven'). Marginal glosses: 'Quid significet, Septuplum ultio dabitur de Cain: de Lamech vero septuagies septies'; 'Quadruplex interpretatio. Prima interpretatio.' Odd-side running head 'IN GENESIM, LIB. VII.' number '757'; true printed page 767. ↩
The interpretation yields THREE grades of men: (1) the innocent (Abel — pleasing God, envied and persecuted, often coming to sad ends; 'Abel' = 'mourning,' cf. John 16:20 'you will weep but the world rejoice'); (2) impenitent sinners (Cain — perpetrating and denying crimes, despairing; restless wanderers fleeing God; 'Cain' = 'possession,' craving only this world's goods, heedless of the afterlife); (3) penitent sinners (Lamech — who, having sinned through error or the impulse of others, at once acknowledge, grieve, confess, and condemn themselves). Marginal glosses: 'Tres gradus hominum, Innocentium, paenitentium, & impaenitentium'; 'Ioan. 16.' ↩
Chrysostom (homily 20 on Genesis) confirms that Lamech was of the penitent grade: Cain's punishment profited Lamech, who — without waiting to be accused — confessed his crime unprompted to his wives (fulfilling Prov 18:17, 'the just is his own accuser at the outset'), for 'confession avails very much for amending sins.' To deny sins after committing them is graver than the sins themselves — which [Cain did]... Marginal glosses: 'Confessio Lamech secundum Chrysostomum'; 'Proverb. 18.'; 'Confessio ad emendanda peccata plurimum valet.' Catchword 'id quod' (continues on the next page). ↩
Chrysostom continues: Cain, asked by God, denied and even lied (to prolong his life); but Lamech, having fallen into the same sins, weighed that denial brings a graver penalty, and so confessed unprompted to his wives, defining his own punishment by comparison with Cain. God's providence: Cain's punishment became an occasion of mercy — profiting not only Cain but others (for it was the memory of Cain's fate that led Lamech to confess). Verso running head 'COMMENTARIORVM' number '758'; true printed page 768. ↩
Chrysostom's fuller reading: Lamech's prudence was pious — he both confessed and imposed the penalty on himself, comparing his sin to Cain's. Self-condemning: he committed a DOUBLE homicide, having Cain's example and punishment before his eyes yet not made more cautious (whereas Cain had no prior example and was carried by anger — both of which aggravate Lamech's guilt); so if Cain merited sevenfold for one killing, Lamech merits seventy-sevenfold, and even that is too little. 'Thus Chrysostom.' (Marginal variant: 'cicatricem' for 'livorem'; and a note that Cain's punishment 'was good and useful' to Lamech.) ↩
SECOND interpretation of the numbers: 'seventy-seven' = Lamech's 77 children (from his two wives), who all perished in the flood as punishment for his homicide (per Josephus) — 'Cain punished in the seventh generation, but I lose 77 sons.' Pererius rejects it: it fits the text poorly, and the flood was the general punishment of all men (not Lamech's proper penalty), pertaining no less to Cain (whose posterity they were). Marginal glosses: 'Secunda interpretatio'; 'Iosephi lib. 1. Antiquitatum.' ↩
THIRD interpretation (contrary to the rest): the 'sevenfold' and 'seventy-sevenfold' refer not to Cain and Lamech themselves but to their KILLERS. Marginal gloss: 'Tertia interpretatio.' Catchword 'ficatur' (significatur; continues on the next page). ↩
The third interpretation completed: 'sevenfold' and 'seventy-sevenfold' denote the penalties for the KILLERS of Cain and Lamech, not for Cain and Lamech themselves. So Lamech reassures his wives that he need not fear being killed: if God protected even the fratricide Cain (sevenfold vengeance on his killer), how much more will God punish anyone who kills Lamech, who killed a wicked man (Cain) only by ignorance and error. Odd-side running head 'IN GENESIM, LIB. VII.' number '759'; true printed page 769. ↩
FOURTH interpretation — Rupert (Comm. in Gen. bk 3, ch. 8): Cain's 'sevenfold' = an insoluble, ETERNAL punishment (which he paid, having not repented); Lamech's 'seventy-sevenfold' = a soluble, TEMPORAL punishment (which the penitent Lamech expiated in this life). So Lamech's penalty had to be temporal, not eternal. Pererius will quote Rupert's words — 'plainly new' and diverging from the common view, yet respectable given his piety and learning. Marginal gloss: 'Quarta interpretatio Ruperti, sane nova & mira.' ↩
Rupert's argument (verbatim): Lamech did penance (his confession to his wives). Though 'seventy-sevenfold' seems numerically MORE than 'sevenfold,' it is really LESS — attend to the nature, not the quantity, of the numbers. Both seven and seventy-seven are odd, but seven is 'uncompounded' (prime — no divisor but unity), hence 'insoluble'; seventy-seven is 'compounded' (7 × 11), hence 'more soluble.' So Cain's 'sevenfold' means an insoluble (eternal) punishment... Marginal gloss: 'Imparium numerorum divisio.' Page footer signature 'EEEE'; catchword 'debet' (continues on the next page). ↩
End of Rupert's fourth interpretation: Cain's 'sevenfold' = an insoluble (eternal) punishment (he did not repent); Lamech's 'seventy-sevenfold' = a soluble (temporal) one (he confessed). Scripture, speaking of dead Cain ('sevenfold shall be given for Cain'), refutes those who think death blotted out his sin. He ties in Matt 18:21-22 (Peter's 'seven times' / 'seventy times seven') — 'seven' = sinning incessantly without penitence (Cain); 'seventy-seven' = sin loosed by penitence (Lamech); and Luke 17:3-4 (forgiving personal injuries however often, cf. the unforgiving servant, Matt 18:32-33). 'Thus Rupert.' Marginal glosses: 'Locus Matth. 18. explicatur'; 'Luc 17.'; 'Matth. 18.' Verso running head 'COMMENTARIORVM' number '760'; true printed page 770. ↩